Skip to main content

Out of court settlement during ongoing Insolvency Process?

In Vivek Bansal Vs Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., in a recent judgment the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a company could exit an ongoing insolvency process even as an interim resolution professional had been appointed and a moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the adjudicating authority, that is the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) triggering the debate over the best option for banks and other creditors to recover their dues-a resolution monitored by the court, or an out-of-court settlement with lenders.

In the judgment, a bench headed by acting chairperson Justice Bansi Lal Bhat noted that since the operational creditor (who had taken the company to NCLT) and the corporate debtor had “amicably settled the dispute”, it allowed the parties to exit the CIRP.

The tribunal decided that as the parties have reached the settlement and the ‘Committee of Creditors’ was not constituted, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the impugned order dated 27th May, 2020 passed in ‘C.P. No. IB 2223 (ND)/2019’ was set aside and allowed exit from the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ which is permissible in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.’ – (2019) 4 SCC 17). The matter is accordingly disposed of in terms of the ‘Settlement Agreement’ between the parties.

The latest move by the NCLAT paves the way for companies to settle claims and end ongoing insolvency cases. The ‘corporate debtors’ in such cases can thus arrive at a settlement with the lenders, even after initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the IBC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more